DOCSLIB.ORG

A Bundle of Confusion for the Income Tax: What It Means to Own Something Stephanie H

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Bundle of Confusion for the Income Tax: What It Means to Own Something Stephanie H University of Cincinnati College of Law University of Cincinnati College of Law Scholarship and Publications Faculty Articles and Other Publications College of Law Faculty Scholarship 2014 A Bundle of Confusion for the Income Tax: What It Means to Own Something Stephanie H. McMahon University of Cincinnati College of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.uc.edu/fac_pubs Part of the Property Law and Real Estate Commons, and the Taxation-Federal Commons Recommended Citation Stephanie Hunter McMahon, A Bundle of Confusion for the Income Tax: What It Means to Own Something, 108 Nw. U. L. Rev. 959 (2014) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Law Faculty Scholarship at University of Cincinnati College of Law Scholarship and Publications. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Articles and Other Publications by an authorized administrator of University of Cincinnati College of Law Scholarship and Publications. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Copyright 2014 by Stephanie Hunter McMahon Printed in U.S.A. Vol. 108, No. 3 A BUNDLE OF CONFUSION FOR THE INCOME TAX: WHAT IT MEANS TO OWN SOMETHING Stephanie Hunter McMahon ABSTRACT-Conceptions of property exist on a spectrum between the Blackstonian absolute dominion over an object to a bundle of rights and obligations that recognizes, if not encourages, the splitting of property interests among different people. The development of the bundle of rights conception of property occurred in roughly the same era as the enactment of the modem federal income tax. Nevertheless, when Congress enacted the tax in 1913, it did not consider how the nuances of property, and the possible splitting of the property interests in an income-producing item, might affect application of the tax. Soon after the tax's enactment, the Treasury Department and the courts were confronted with questions of who owned, and could be taxed on, what income. As shown by an examination of family partnerships and synthetic leases, the government continues to struggle with determining who owns a sufficient property interest to be taxed because Congress has yet to define ownership for tax purposes. AUTHOR-Professor, University of Cincinnati College of Law. The author would like to extend her thanks to the Northwestern University Law Review and to Professor Charlotte Crane for organizing this symposium and to acknowledge comments on previous drafts of this Article from conference participants and my fellow faculty at the University of Cincinnati. 959 NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW I. FROM BLACKSTONE TO BUNDLES..........................................................................960 II. HISTORY OF THE INCOME TAX ..... ..... ............................................. 962 III. EVOLVING SENSE OF PROPERTY ......................... .................... 969 IV. CONSEQUENCES OF THE BUNDLE OF CONFUSION...................................................975 A. Family Partnerships .......................................... 977 B. Synthetic Leases....... ...................................... 982 C. Broader Implications ............................................. 985 CONCLUSION ....................................................... ........................... 986 I. FROM BLACKSTONE TO BUNDLES Sir William Blackstone made famous the conception of property as "that sole and despotic dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in total exclusion of the right of any other individual in the universe."' This vision of property attributes to the owner almost total control. Despite the resonance of this Blackstonian ideal, truly despotic ownership over property has never been possible. Society demands constraints on what owners are allowed to do with their property; and many owners sell or give away some, but not all, rights to their property. Today Blackstone's view of property as a solitary thing-owned and controlled by one-is a fiction, although one that continues to have political power. Instead, we divide some attributes of ownership here, we limit some rights there, each of these responses to modem life flying in the face of our Blackstonian conception of property. If Blackstone could impose his view of property on the United States today, the income tax could be easily and fairly applied. Whoever owned a piece of property, and only one person could, would be taxed on the income that the property produced. Property owners' ability to convey away limited rights to property complicates this story. Congress did not consider this complication when it drafted the 1913 income tax, notwithstanding growing understanding in many quarters that property was a "bundle of rights."2 In roughly the same period as the modem income tax's enactment, policymakers began to realize that different people could have different rights to portions of property. Nevertheless, Congress imposed on the tax a conception of property consistent with the earlier Blackstonian vision. I I WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES *2. 2 The metaphor has been traced to the late nineteenth century. See GREGORY S. ALEXANDER, COMMODITY & PROPRIETY 322 n.40 (1997). The term was not used by Wesley Hohfeld who is often credited with this conception of property. See generally Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld, Some Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in JudicialReasoning, 23 YALE L.J. 16 (1913). 960 108:959 (2014) Bundle of Confusion for the Income Tax Property as an abstract compilation of different types of rights could be, and often was, owned by different people. To the extent that property was owned by more than one person, whether what a person owned was appropriate to be taxed was open to debate. Despite this issue, Congress originally ignored the potential complexity of ownership when it taxed the income "of' an individual. That phrasing presupposed Blackstone's understanding of ownership, and for a significant period of time no one felt the need to determine ownership for tax purposes.' That this fundamental issue was ignored might not be surprising in the world of congressional politics when income tax rates were low and the amount of revenue it raised was small compared to the other federal taxes. Nevertheless, the failure of Congress to grapple head-on with this issue of taxation in the midst of an evolving understanding of ownership has resulted in legal confusion and costly litigation over the application of the federal income tax. Soon after the 1913 income tax's enactment, the Treasury Department was confronted with numerous tax returns, the tax liability of which turned on the ownership of property. In the early decades of the income tax, the potential to fracture ownership was contested most often with respect to family property (as many of the business arrangements and financial products that currently utilize complex ownership structures were not yet imagined). Partnerships, trusts, contracts, community property laws, all provided the opportunity for interested parties to argue about who owned what and what ownership meant. Although ownership evoked consideration of power and control, dispersing ownership, if only for tax purposes, allowed families as a collective to have more income taxed in lower tax brackets, thereby encouraging the fracturing of ownership as a means of tax reduction. In the face of these contests, the question arose whether the federal government would develop a federal common law of ownership for income tax purposes to answer the question of who should be taxed on what. This Article progresses in three parts. First, this Article briefly discusses the political and judicial history of the income tax. The antecedent to the modern income tax was enacted in 1913, at the height of the Progressive Era. In a time of reform and dreams of reform, Congress passed an income tax based on the idea of a redistributive tax but without a plan for how the tax would actually work.' The rhetoric of class legislation and redistributing from the rich to the poor that permeated earlier debates over the income tax was common to Progressive Era politics. Since there See Tariff of 1913, Pub. L. No. 63-16, § 2, 38 Stat. 114, 166-81. 4 Boris I. Bittker, FederalIncome Taxation and the Family, 27 STAN. L. REV. 1389, 1396, 1400-01 (1975). 5 Stephanie Hunter McMahon, A Law with a Life of Its Own: The Development of the Federal Income Tax Statutes Through World War 1, 7 PITT. TAX REV. 1, 4 (2009). 961 NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW was an established focus on the income tax as class legislation, that focus allowed Congress to either miss or ignore the importance of the ownership question. Second, this Article discusses the evolution in the Progressie Era of the idea of ownership and the expansiveness of property interests. Although Congress was not focused on this issue when it enacted the 1913 income tax, the ensuing complications in the development of this legal concept nevertheless shaped what the income tax would become. Developments in legal theory independent of taxation provided the arguments necessary for taxpayers to minimize their taxes. It appears that Congress did not anticipate this cross-pollination of ideas between the law of property and taxation. Finally, examining first family partnerships and then synthetic leases, this Article evaluates the consequences of Congress's position (or lack thereof) on the meaning of ownership. In each, the government's desire to apply the tax consistently on a national level
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rehabilitating Repugnancy? Preserving That Piece of Medieval Lumber
    REHABILITATING REPUGNANCY? PRESERVING THAT PIECE OF MEDIEVAL LUMBER SCOTT GRATTAN* This article examines restraints on alienation imposed by the grantor as a condition in the transfer of property to the grantee (rather than contractual restraints subsequently entered into by an owner). It considers whether the doctrine of repugnancy has any useful part to play in testing the validity of such restraints in light of Glanville Williams’ criticism of the doctrine as ‘pseudo-logical’ and lacking utility. Examining the numerus clausus principle and Australian, English and (certain) American cases in which the doctrine has been addressed, the article argues that a wholesale rejection of repugnancy is unwarranted. First, some version of the repugnancy doctrine is necessarily required as part and parcel of distinguishing between various forms of proprietary (and non- proprietary) interests. Second, the courts continue to apply the repugnancy doctrine in distinguishing between determinable interests and those defeasible by condition subs- equent when ascertaining the validity of a condition that operates upon a purported alienation or bankruptcy. Finally, it may be seen that testing restraints by reasonableness and policy alone, without recourse to repugnancy, can produce problematic results. The doctrine of repugnancy cannot, therefore, simply be dismissed as a mere historical relic. CONTENTS I Introduction .............................................................................................................. 922 II The Context: Restraints
    [Show full text]
  • A Bundle of Rights
    A BUNDLE OF RIGHTS 17 U.S.C. § 106 (2004) Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending; (4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly; (5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and (6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission. __________ A. THE DISTRIBUTION RIGHT 17 U.S.C. § 109 (2004) (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 (3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, copies or phonorecords of works subject to restored copyright under section 104A that are manufactured before the date of restoration
    [Show full text]
  • A Sublette County Profile: Socioeconomics
    JULY 2015 A Sublette County Profile: Socioeconomics Sublette County Board of County Commissioners Andy Nelson, Chair Joel Bousman Jim Latta INTRODUCTION In a rapidly changing world, timely and accurate information is essential to good decision making. Local officials, state governments, Federal agencies, and the general public need information on the structure and trends within a region’s economy in order to more effectively conduct and participate in public policy decision making processes. Information describing regional economic conditions can aid in the public policy decision making process by providing a perspective on economic structure and changes over time. In addition, the identification of long-term trends can help residents, local official, state government, and Federal agencies plan for the future. This report has been developed to provide baseline information on the structure and trends of the Sublette County economy. Four types of information are discussed in this report, including: 1) Demographics, 2) Land Characteristics, 3) County Government Finances, and 4) Industry Profiles. The Demographic section provides information on the characteristics of the residents of county. The Land Characteristic section provides a perspective on the physical setting of the county. The County Government Finances section considers county government’s ability to meet the needs of residents in terms of public services and public infrastructure. The Industry profile section discusses the economic importance of selected industries in the county. Each type of information is discussed separately in the report. To put Sublette County’s information in perspective, the county data is compared to corresponding data for Wyoming and the United States. A variety of data sources were used to development this socio-economic profile including the Wyoming Department of Administration & Information – Economic Analysis Division’s Wyoming County Profiles.
    [Show full text]
  • Real Estate Market Fundamentals and Asset Pricing
    Real Estate Market Fundamentals and Asset Pricing Petros S. Sivitanides, Raymond G. Torto, and William C. Wheaton n the last year we have heard much discussion of a disconnect between the commercial real estate cap- ital and space markets. We see declines in the cap rates (yields) of property transactions, while a weak- Iened economy has generated deteriorating real estate market fundamentals (Gordon [2003]; Kaiser [2003]). Corcoran and Iwai [2003] argue that such a pattern could be just what an efficient asset market should pro- duce if the space market is always mean-reverting. If fundamentals are temporarily depressed, an efficient mar- ket will keep prices firm and hence produce lower cap rates—in anticipation of a recovery. If the space market is strong, cap rates should fall in anticipation of eventual new supply and market softening. PETROS S. SIVITANIDES is a Our objective in this discussion is an econometric senior economist at Torto examination of the historical movements in office space Wheaton Research in Boston (MA 02110). market fundamentals (vacancy and rental rates) in order psivitanides@ to compare them with a similar history of office market tortowheatonresearch.com capital movements (prices and yields). This comparison supports three conclusions: RAYMOND G. TORTO is a managing director at Torto Wheaton Research in Boston 1. In examining how market fundamentals influ- (MA 02110). ence asset pricing, it is crucial to control for [email protected] interest rates. In fact, a better way to measure how the asset market views the space market is WILLIAM C. WHEATON is a to look at real estate spreads over Treasuries.
    [Show full text]
  • Interdependence and Choice in Distributive Justice: the Welfare Conundrum
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 1994 Interdependence and Choice in Distributive Justice: The Welfare Conundrum Lee Anne Fennell Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Lee Anne Fennell, "Interdependence and Choice in Distributive Justice: The Welfare Conundrum," 1994 Wisconsin Law Review 235 (1994). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLES INTERDEPENDENCE AND CHOICE IN DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE: THE WELFARE CONUNDRUM LEE ANNE FENNELL* This Article presents a theoretical model for analyzing welfare policy choices, a model that seeks both to explain the puzzling persistence of welfare in the face of widespread dissatisfaction with it, and to provide a reasoned basis for making more satisfactory policy choices. Drawing on game theory, the author postulates that the poor and the nonpoor are faced with a strategic dilemma as a result of their shared stake in the alleviation of poverty. The author's analysis of this dilemma suggests that the nonpoor react rationally by providing assistance to the poor, but that they are dissatisfied with this outcome insofar as it imposes costs on them. Indeed, the author contends that some of the most troubling of these costs result from decisions made by the poor in reaction to the nonpoor's decision to provide assistance. Having identified the strategic dilemma or "game" that results in society's grudging provision of welfare, the author then explores ways in which society can reduce the costs associated with welfare by changing the way the game is perceived by the poor, the nonpoor, or both.
    [Show full text]
  • REAL ESTATE LAW LESSON 1 OWNERSHIP RIGHTS (IN PROPERTY) Real Estate Law Outline LESSON 1 Pg
    REAL ESTATE LAW LESSON 1 OWNERSHIP RIGHTS (IN PROPERTY) Real Estate Law Outline LESSON 1 Pg Ownership Rights (In Property) 3 Real vs Personal Property 5 . Personal Property 5 . Real Property 6 . Components of Real Property 6 . Subsurface Rights 6 . Air Rights 6 . Improvements 7 . Fixtures 7 The Four Tests of Intention 7 Manner of Attachment 7 Adaptation of the Object 8 Existence of an Agreement 8 Relationships of the Parties 8 Ownership of Plants and Trees 9 Severance 9 Water Rights 9 Appurtenances 10 Interest in Land 11 Estates in Land 11 Allodial System 11 Kinds of Estates 12 Freehold Estates 12 Fee Simple Absolute 12 Defeasible Fee 13 Fee Simple Determinable 13 Fee Simple Subject to Condition Subsequent 14 Fee Simple Subject to Condition Precedent 14 Fee Simple Subject to an Executory Limitation 15 Fee Tail 15 Life Estates 16 Legal Life Estates 17 Homestead Protection 17 Non-Freehold Estates 18 Estates for Years 19 Periodic Estate 19 Estates at Will 19 Estate at Sufferance 19 Common Law and Statutory Law 19 Copyright by Tony Portararo REV. 08-2014 1 REAL ESTATE LAW LESSON 1 OWNERSHIP RIGHTS (IN PROPERTY) Types of Ownership 20 Sole Ownership (An Estate in Severalty) 20 Partnerships 21 General Partnerships 21 Limited Partnerships 21 Joint Ventures 22 Syndications 22 Corporations 22 Concurrent Ownership 23 Tenants in Common 23 Joint Tenancy 24 Tenancy by the Entirety 25 Community Property 26 Trusts 26 Real Estate Investment Trusts 27 Intervivos and Testamentary Trusts 27 Land Trust 27 TEST ONE 29 TEST TWO (ANNOTATED) 39 Copyright by Tony Portararo REV.
    [Show full text]
  • A Glossary of Fiscal Terms & Acronyms
    AUGUST7,1998VOLUME13,NO .VII A Publication of the House Fiscal Analysis Department on Government Finance Issues A GLOSSARY OF FISCAL TERMS & ACRONYMS 1998 Revised Edition Abstract. This issue of Money Matters is a resource document containing terms and acronyms commonly used by and in legislative fiscal committees and in the discussion of state budget and tax issues. The first section contains terms and abbreviations used in all fiscal committees and divisions. The remaining sections contain terms for particular budget categories and accounts, organized according to fiscal subject areas. This edition has new sections containing economic development, family and early childhood, and housing terms and acronyms. The other sections are revised and updated to reflect changes in terminology, particularly the human services section. For further information, contact the Chief Fiscal Analyst or the fiscal analyst assigned to the respective House fiscal committee or division. A directory of House Fiscal Analysis Department personnel and their committee/division assignments for the 1998 legislative session appears on the next page. Originally issued January 1997 Revised August 1998 House Fiscal Analysis Department Staff Assignments — 1998 Session Committee/Division Fiscal Analyst Telephone Room Chief Fiscal Analyst Bill Marx 296-7176 373 Capital Investment John Walz 296-8236 376 EDIT— Economic Development Finance CJ Eisenbarth Hager 296-5813 428 EDIT— Housing Finance Cynthia Coronado 296-5384 361 Environment & Natural Resources Finance Jim Reinholdz 296-4119 370 Education — Higher Education Finance Doug Berg 296-5346 372 K-12 Education Finance Greg Crowe 296-7165 378 Family & Early Childhood Finance Cynthia Coronado 296-5384 361 Health & Human Services Finance Joe Flores 296-5483 385 Judiciary Finance Gary Karger 296-4181 383 State Government Finance Helen Roberts 296-4117 374 Transportation Finance John Walz 296-8236 376 Taxes — Income, sales, misc.
    [Show full text]
  • Prior Appropriations Water Rights: Does Lucas Provide a Takings Action Against Federal Regulation Under the Endangered Species Act?
    Washington University Law Review Volume 71 Issue 4 A Tribute to Professor Merton C. Bernstein January 1993 Prior Appropriations Water Rights: Does Lucas Provide a Takings Action Against Federal Regulation Under the Endangered Species Act? Michael A. Yuffee Washington University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview Part of the Environmental Law Commons, and the Legislation Commons Recommended Citation Michael A. Yuffee, Prior Appropriations Water Rights: Does Lucas Provide a Takings Action Against Federal Regulation Under the Endangered Species Act?, 71 WASH. U. L. Q. 1217 (1993). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol71/iss4/18 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PRIOR APPROPRIATIONS WATER RIGHTS: DOES LUCAS PROVIDE A TAKINGS ACTION AGAINST FEDERAL REGULATION UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT? Twenty years ago, Congress passed the Endangered Species Act' as part of a series of ecologically-focused legislative acts.2 The Endangered Species Act (ESA) codifies the federal policy of protecting endangered and threatened species by designating and maintaining critical habitats.3 While this policy may be the most effective way to manage the species conserva- tion effort, it may potentially conflict with private property rights.4 Applying the ESA to state-derived private property rights, such as appropriations water rights, showcases a potential conflict between these state rights and federal regulation.5 In its history, the ESA has never been applied to include private property within a protected species' critical habitat.
    [Show full text]
  • Spatial Dependence of Per Capita Property Tax Income in South Africa
    Spatial dependence of per capita property tax income in South Africa Kabeya Clement Mulamba and Fiona Tergenna ERSA working paper 801 October 2019 The views expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of the funder, ERSA or the author’s affiliated institution(s). ERSA shall not be liable to any person for inaccurate information or opinions contained herein. Spatial dependence of per capita property tax income in South Africa Kabeya Clement Mulambaand Fiona Tregennay October 14, 2019 Abstract We investigate spatial dependence of per capita property tax income among South African municipalities. One original contribution of our study is the use of per capita property tax income, rather than the prop- erty tax rate, as the outcome variable. Per capita property tax income is indicative of tax burden on residents. In addition, whilst most studies focus on advanced countries that have had institutionalised fiscal decen- tralisation for many decades, this paper focuses on South Africa, which is a developing country and implemented fiscal decentralisation only 18 years ago. Using Bayesian spatial econometric approach, we establish the presence of spatial dependence. Keywords: municipalities, per capita property tax income, spatial, spatial dependence, South Africa JEL Classification: H70, H77, C31 1 Introduction Property tax is the most significant tax income source assigned to municipali- ties in South Africa (Republic of South Africa, 1996). Local and metropolitan municipalities, particularly in urban areas, generate more than 20 percent of own income through property tax (Department of National Treasury, 2011). Therefore, while it is important to understand the determinants of property tax income, it is also important to examine whether the latter is characterised by spatial dependence.
    [Show full text]
  • Making Income and Property Taxes More Growth-Friendly and Redistributive in India
    OECD Economics Department Working Papers No. 1389 Making income and property Isabelle Joumard, taxes more growth-friendly Alastair Thomas, and redistributive in India Hermes Morgavi https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5e542f11-en Unclassified ECO/WKP(2017)21 Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Économiques Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 02-Jun-2017 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________ English - Or. English ECONOMICS DEPARTMENT Unclassified ECO /WKP(2017)21 MAKING INCOME AND PROPERTY TAXES MORE GROWTH-FRIENDLY AND REDISTRIBUTIVE IN INDIA ECONOMICS DEPARTMENT WORKING PAPERS No. 1389 By Isabelle Joumard, Alastair Thomas and Hermes Morgavi OECD Working Papers should not be reported as representing the official views of the OECD or of its member countries. The opinions expressed and arguments employed are those of the author(s). Authorised for publication by Alvaro Pereira, Director, Country Studies Branch, Economics Department. All Economics Department Working Papers are available at www.oecd.org/eco/workingpapers English JT03415233 Complete document available on OLIS in its original format - This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the Or. English delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. ECO/WKP(2017)21 OECD Working Papers should not be reported as representing the official views of the OECD or of its member countries. The opinions expressed and arguments employed are those of the author(s). Working Papers describe preliminary results or research in progress by the author(s) and are published to stimulate discussion on a broad range of issues on which the OECD works.
    [Show full text]
  • The Essence of Property Law
    Review: The Essence of Property Law FUNDAMENTALS OF MODERN REAL PROPERTY LAW, 3d Edition. By Edward H. Rabin and Roberta Rosenthal Kwall. New York, New York: Foundation Press, 1992. Pp. xvi, 1092. Reviewed by Vada Waters Lindsey* I. INTRODUCTION I have taught property law for four years and, after considering other casebooks, I have always used Rabin and Kwall's Fundamentals of Modern Real Property Law.1 My initial reason for selecting this casebook had much to do with my comfort level in contacting Professor Kwall to discuss her use of the casebook and course content. She graciously supplied me with several syllabi she had used through- out the years and helped alleviate the anxiety that accompanies new class preparation. In addition, I found Rabin and Kwall's Teacher's Manual to be a useful tool because of its level of detail, including a reference list to scholarly articles analyzing every subject covered in the casebook. When my former Academic Dean asked me to consider teaching Property Law, I agreed to teach the course without hesitation. I was extremely excited to teach a course in property law-not because I would gain a strong understanding of the archaic rule against perpetu- ities, but because of my desire to help the students establish a strong foundation in transactional law. I taught Wills and Estates during my first semester of law school teaching, which was when the dean approached me regarding teaching Property. I was more than a little frustrated that students lacked a basic understanding of some funda- mental property law concepts, such as the difference between joint tenancy and tenancy in common.
    [Show full text]
  • Burdens & Benefits of Ownership
    Burdens & Benefits of Ownership 1031 When Does the Transfer of Property Occur? Knowledge It is important in an IRC Section 1031 exchange to understand when the transfer of ownership has passed from one party to another and to grasp the distinction between receiving legal title as compared to an equitable ownership interest in property. Legal title represents a bundle of rights in a property and documents the transfer of ownership by a deed. Evidence of legal title is established through a title report prepared by a title insurance company. Equitable ownership represents possession and is an ownership right in a property that may be protected by an equitable remedy. In some cases, legal title and equitable ownership may be transferred independently of each other. Taxpayers should be aware that equitable ownership of a property is complete generally upon the earlier of (A) the passage of legal title; or, (B) the buyer’s assumption of the benefits and burdens of ownership. [See: Keith v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 605, 611 (2000); Baird v. Commissioner, 68 T.C. 115, 124 (1977).] The IRS can look at a number of factors to determine if the burdens and benefits of ownership have transferred from one party to another such as the following seven criteria: (1) Right to possession (2) An obligation to pay taxes, assessments and charges against the property; (3) Responsibility for insuring the property (4) Duty to maintain the property (5) Right to improve the property without the seller’s consent (6) Bearing of the risk of loss and, (7) Right to obtain legal title at any time by paying the balance of the full purchase price.
    [Show full text]